The Role of the Elementary Principal in the Instructional ...

Connexions module: m37402

1

The Role of the Elementary Principal in the Instructional Leadership of Special Education

Lea Anne Frost Thomas Kersten

This work is produced by The Connexions Project and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore, understand, and analyze principals' perceptions of their role as the instructional leader with special education teachers. Both surveys and follow-up telephone interviews were utilized for data collection. Findings indicate that principals holding a state special education teaching certicate reported higher knowledge and involvement with special education teachers than any other identied group, indicating that they were better prepared to support their special education programs and teachers. Concerns were noted with other subgroups who reported areas of higher involvement than knowledge, indicating that these principals were engaging in some activities with special education teachers without having appropriate understanding. Finally, recommendations were oered for institutions of higher learning, school districts, superintendents, and principals on how to increase the likelihood of elementary principals providing eective instructional leadership with special education teachers.

note: This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a signicant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,1 Volume 6, Number 2 (April - June, 2011), ISSN 2155-9635. Formatted and edited in Connexions by Theodore Creighton and Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech, and Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University.

Version 1.2: Apr 14, 2011 7:11 am GMT-5

1



Connexions module: m37402

2

1 Sumario en espanol

El prop?sito de este estudio fue de explorar, comprender, y para analizar las percepciones de directores de su papel como el l?der instruccional con maestros especiales de educaci?n. Ambas inspecciones y las entrevistas telef?nicas segundas fueron utilizados para la recogida de datos. Las conclusiones indican que directores que tienen un estado certicado especial de ense?anza de educaci?n inform? el conocimiento y la participaci?n m?s altos con maestros especiales de educaci?n que cualquier otro grupo identicado, indicando que fueron preparados mejor apoyar sus programas especiales de la educaci?n y maestros. Las preocupaciones fueron notadas con otros subgrupos que informaron ?reas de participaci?n m?s alta que el conocimiento, indicando que estos directores entraban en algunas actividades con maestros especiales de educaci?n sin tener la comprensi?n apropiada. Por ?ltimo, las recomendaciones fueron ofrecidas para instituciones de aprender m?s alto, distritos de escuela, los supervisores, y los directores en c?mo aumentar la probabilidad de directores elementales que proporcionan liderazgo instruccional efectivo con maestros especiales de educaci?n.

note: Esta es una traducci?n por computadora de la p?gina web original. Se suministra como informaci?n general y no debe considerarse completa ni exacta.

2 Introduction

Until the 1900s in the United States, individuals with disabilities were treated with superstition and fear that often resulted in actions of infanticide, shunning, attributions of witchcraft, and divine punishment (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisenstein, 2007, p. 5). As such, individuals with handicapping conditions were isolated from the community and educational system and placed in state operated or privately funded institutions (Bartlett, et al, 2007; Pulliam & Van Patten, 2007). It was common practice to exclude students with disabilities from the general education classroom due to the depressing and nauseating eect [these students had] on teachers and schoolchildren (Pulliam & Van Patten, 2007, p. 320).

As scientic advances were made and humanistic values embraced in the mid-1900s, the general public's attitude towards disabilities began to change. Reformers in the United States began to advocate for more humane institutions as handicapped individuals were beginning to be perceived as having the potential to learn. In institutions for the mentally ill and retarded, conditions and care became more compassionate, and patients were freed literally from their restraints (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisenstein, 2007). However, it was the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that began the journey for equal opportunity for education of all children (Yell, 2006). Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote an opinion in the case stating,

2.1

In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right that must be made available to all on equal terms. (Brown v. Board of Education, p. 493)

As an aftermath of the Brown decision, an attitudinal shift was made from educating children with disabilities in residential institutions to community-based programs (Bartlett, et al., 2007; Beyer & Johnson, 2005).

The Brown argument, however, did not have the force of federal law obligating states to educate students with disabilities. Though advocates argued that exclusion of students with disabilities was as much a denial of education as segregation by race, several state judicial systems supported the notion that Brown did not include students with disabilities. For example, in 1958, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled in the Department of Public Welfare v. Hans that compulsory attendance did not apply to children with disabilities (Yell, 2006). Specically, this case held that the



Connexions module: m37402

3

2.2

state's existing compulsory attendance legislation did not require the state to provide a free public education for the feeble minded or to children who were mentally decient and who, because of their limited intelligence, were unable to reap the benets of a good education. (Yell, 2006, p.63)

Similarly, in 1969 the State of North Carolina made it a crime for parents of a child with a disability to persist in forcing school attendance after the school had excluded the child from public education (Weber, 2002).

Two crucial cases were argued in the early 1970s that extended the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to parents of students with disabilities. In 1971, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC)brought suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in federal district court to challenge a state law that allowed public schools to deny services to children who did not have the skills necessary for entrance into rst grade (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). The major impact of PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was that school districts could no longer deny enrollment and services to children with cognitive disabilities and, in fact, were required to provide an educational program appropriate to a student's learning capacity up to age 21 (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). The PARC case was signicant because it established the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with mental disabilities in an environment with non-disabled peers, when possible (Martin, et al., 1996; Yell, 2006).

The second case, led in 1972, was a federal district court class action suit against the District of Columbia. This case, known as Mills v. Board of Education, was brought on behalf of seven children with a variety of disabilities. The premise of the plainti 's argument was that students were excluded from public education without due process; thereby denying the students their rights under the 14th amendment. Under the 14th amendment, individuals are provided equal protection under the law meaning that all people must be treated alike and are entitled to due process prior to being deprived of life, liberty, or property. This amendment played an important role in this case and subsequently in other right-to-education cases. The court held that because racial segregation was unconstitutional, so was segregation based on a student's disability. As a result of the Mills case, provisions were made for: (a) a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities; and (b) due process safeguards for eligibility, placement, and exclusion of services (Yell, 2006). In practice, this judgment aorded families a full range of procedural protections and prohibited school districts from utilizing the lack of funding argument as a basis for denying services to children with disabilities (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996).

Prior to 1975, approximately one million children in the United States were excluded from public schools because of the nature of their educational needs and approximately four million children with disabilities did not receive the educational assistance they required to succeed in school (Bergert & Burnett, 2001; Pulliam & Van Patten, 2007). In the past 35 years, public education has conformed to dierent mandates, revisions, and reforms that have expanded services and programs in local school districts for children with special needs. Specically, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that all students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment with access to the general curriculum. Accordingly, special education placement rst begins in a student's home school (Lasky & Karge, 2006; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003).

3 Instructional Leadership to Special Education Teachers

Since IDEA requires that all students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment with access to the general curriculum and participation in assessment practices, special education placement begins within the site of a student's home school building under the leadership of the principal (Lasky & Karge, 2006; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). As such, the Oce of Special Education Programs (OSEP), a division of the U.S. Department of Education, has maintained that a central role of the principal is providing instructional leadership to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities are protected and that these students receive an appropriate education (Heumann & Hehir, 1998). This responsibility is also supported in standard two of the Interstate School Leader Licensure Standards and Indicators (ISLLC), which states



Connexions module: m37402

4

that a school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and sta professional growth (Council of Chief State School Ocers, 1996, p. 14).

The State of Illinois has made it clear that the primary role of the principal is instructional leadership for all programs within the school. According to the Illinois School Student Records Act:

3.1

The principal shall assume administrative responsibilities and instructional leadership, under the supervision of the superintendent, and in accordance with reasonable rules and regulations of the board, for the planning,

operation and evaluation of the educational program of the attendance area to which he or she is assigned. . ..

Additionally,

3.2

School boards shall specify in their formal job description for principals that his or her primary responsibility is in the improvement of instruction. A majority of the time spent by a principal shall be spent on curriculum and sta development through both formal and informal activities, establishing clear lines of

communication regarding school goals, accomplishments, practices and policies with parents and teachers. . ..

(Illinois Association of School Boards, 2010, section105 ILCS 5/10-21.4a) And nally,

3.3

School boards shall ensure that their principals are evaluated on their instructional leadership ability and their ability to maintain a positive education and learning climate. (Illinois Association of School Boards, 2010, section105 ILCS 5/10-21.4a)

DiPaola and Walther-Thomas (2003) report that professional organizations such as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) emphasize the importance of the principal's role in eective special education programming. In fact, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) has collaborated with the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) to create documents for school principals regarding the support of special education sta and services (NAESP, 2001).

While the expectation that school principals serve as instructional leaders for special education teachers is clear, principals often have little preparation or practice in assuming this responsibility. Several studies have noted that most school principals have minimal training, through coursework and eld experience, related to special education (Billingsley, 2005; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). Bargerhu (2001) reported that a principal's experience with students with disabilities is typically limited to requirements related to federal and state laws, and further acknowledged that even though school principals are expected to serve as instructional leaders, the extent to which the principal has been responsible for special education students has been less apparent(p. 3). Heumann and Hehir (1998) described the building principal as an instructional leader for all sta and students and say that if the administrator employed certain strategies special education could become a service for children with disabilities rather than a place where they are sent (p.2).

Bays and Crockett (2007) also found that school principals often have minimal interactions with special education teachers about improving teaching and learning. They note that school principals attempt to balance responsibilities of: (a) daily operative administrative duties; (b) tasks associated with legal compliance; and (c) instructional quality in the general education program, leaving little time for special education leadership (Bays & Crockett, 2007).

Bays and Crockett (2007) examined nine elementary schools within three school districts in the southeastern United States and determined that no systematic monitoring of instruction, evidence- or research-based instruction, or accountability to student progress was evident in teaching students with disabilities. Therefore, they concluded that school principals need to include as a component of their instructional leadership



Connexions module: m37402

5

practices: (a) a vision that includes eective instruction for students with disabilities; (b) the oering to all members of the school environment norms of trust, collaboration, and academic achievement; (c) engagement of all teachers and the provision of meaningful support; and (d) the monitoring of instruction and strategies. By establishing these components, eorts could be made that lead to enhanced instructional leadership practices for the special education department. Bays and Crockett (2007) further stated that instructional leadership should improve special education for students who have unique educational needs and enhance the success of their schools in meeting annual targets for improvement (p. 145).

Other researchers have identied areas necessary for school principals to be eective in their role as instructional leaders for special educators. Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006) found that school principals must set expectations for student achievement, establish school climate, and demonstrate leadership with stakeholders.

Lasky and Karge (2006) explicitly state that school principals must perform activities that: (a) display special education knowledge and skills in eective instruction, assessment, and discipline(para. 5); (b) develop skills to support instructional teams; and (c) sustain collaborative group involvement in order to be instructional leaders and agents of change for special education sta.

Goor, Schwenn, and Boyer (1997) found that school principals who are most eective in special education: (a) possess essential beliefs regarding the education of special education students, (b) access resources to assist in fact nding and decision making, (c) understand the support that special education teachers need to impact academic and behavioral needs of students, (d) support and monitor procedures, (e) maintain records and condentiality, (f ) ensure parental involvement, (g) participate in the employee selection process, (h) assist in the discipline of special education students, (i) understand and are aware of current legal requirements and technological advances, (j) collaborate and build trust with stakeholders, (k) model positive attitudes, (l) engage in eective listening and problem solving skills, (m) support teaching sta, and (n) practice reective behaviors.

Guzman (1997) concluded that school principals who develop eective special education programs practice eight responsibilities. One is establishing a communication system that allows sta to discuss with administrators issues for rening special education policies and procedures. A second is attending and participating in initial and dicult IEPs. In addition, a third responsibility is building and sustaining a rapport with parents of students with disabilities. Another is collaborating with building sta to develop modications in the established behavior policies to address the specic needs of students with disabilities. A fth is establishing and modeling a shared philosophy of service delivery to students with disabilities. In addition, principals should implement a personal professional development plan that includes topics related to students with disabilities. They should also develop and implement data gathering skills that relate to conducting proper teacher evaluations. Finally, principals need to demonstrate problem- solving and decision-making skills that enhance and rene special education programs and services.

McLaughlin (2009) identied three characteristics of eective leaders in special education. School administrators need to have knowledge of federal and state special education rules as well as an understanding of instructional strategies and techniques utilized by special educators to ensure student achievement. They also need to create a school-wide culture that accepts and integrates all students and identies special education services and supports that provide students with access to curriculum. Finally, school administrators need to ensure that students receiving special education services participate in state and local assessments and that data are utilized in the school improvement process.

According to Beyer and Johnson (2005), the role of the school leader in the administration of special education programs has become more complex and multifaceted (p. 53). Beyer and Johnson (2005) explain that the role of the school principal with special education programming must include: (a) appropriation of necessary space and resources; (b) participation in IEP meetings; (c) supervision of special education personnel; (d) management of student programming; (e) knowledge of legal and ethical practices in special education programming; (f ) implementation of current best practices; (g) creation of a supportive and accepting environment between all stakeholders; (h) supervision of the referral, eligibility, and placement process for students requiring specialized services; and (i) leadership skills especially in the areas of relationshipforming, problem-solving methods, conict resolution, and outsourcing for expertise and assistance. Beyer



 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download